Generated from User Fields History Tracking's audit data
User Fields History Tracking scores 53/100 across 6 category checks, which tracks in the middle band, with 4 of 6 categories below the headline. Strengths: title optimization holds at 75/100, so the listing isn't fundamentally broken — the lift is in tightening specific weaknesses. Watch-items: categories & discoverability (17/100) and technical & support (42/100) drag the average down; lifting categories & discoverability is the single largest available lever. Per-category breakdown below.
This is an independent listing audit for User Fields History Tracking on Salesforce. It scored 53/100 (grade D) on today's snapshot. Top strength: Title Optimization at 75/100. Biggest gap: Categories & Discoverability at 17/100. We re-audit every 24 hours from the canonical Salesforce listing.
Six weighted areas, pass / warning / fail per check, tiers at 85 / 65. Full methodology · Glossary
Last updated: July 13, 2026
User Fields History Tracking's overall score of 53/100 is a mid-tier result — the listing is functional but multiple categories have headroom, computed as the weighted average of 6 category checks. The spread is highly polarized across categories — 2 categories score above the headline number and 4 score below. The strongest category is Title Optimization (75/100, +22 vs overall); the weakest is Categories & Discoverability (17/100), a 36-point gap below the headline score — the largest single lever. Top three by score: Title Optimization (75), Description & Content (71), Visual Assets (50).
Scoring criteria, category weightings, and the full rubric (identical across every Salesforce AppExchange listing AppRanks audits) are documented on the methodology page and the audit-score glossary entry. Disputes or data corrections: [email protected].
User Fields History Tracking scored 53/100 in the AppRanks listing audit — a mid-tier result with room to improve. The score is the weighted average of 6 category checks: Title Optimization 75/100, Description & Content 71/100, Visual Assets 50/100, Categories & Discoverability 17/100, Technical & Support 42/100, Languages 50/100. Each category is scored against a fixed rubric that is identical for every app on the platform, so scores are directly comparable across Salesforce listings.
User Fields History Tracking's strongest audit area is Title Optimization, scored at 75/100. Of the 4 checks AppRanks runs in this category, 2 pass cleanly, with the remainder in warning rather than failing state. This is the dimension a competing listing would need to match before User Fields History Tracking loses its current edge in this category.
The weakest area in User Fields History Tracking's audit is Categories & Discoverability, scored at 17/100. The failing checks are category count, feature tags, each with a concrete fix described below. Tightening this category is the highest-impact change available to the listing — its weight in the overall score makes it the lever most likely to move the headline number on the next refresh.